Jump to content


Are You Happy with RNG Percentage ? (Poll)

RNG Penetration Alpha damage Accuracy

  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

Poll: RNG (226 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Are you happy with recent RNG Percent?

  1. Yes (46 votes [20.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.35%

  2. No (180 votes [79.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.65%

If not, What should be?

  1. %5 (34 votes [15.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.04%

  2. %10 (93 votes [41.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.15%

  3. %15 (54 votes [23.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.89%

  4. %20 (9 votes [3.98%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.98%

  5. %30 (2 votes [0.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.88%

  6. %40 (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. %50 lol (11 votes [4.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.87%

  8. I'm happy with recent percentage (23 votes [10.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.18%

Vote Hide poll

MrBotosh #1 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Colonel

  • Community Contributor
  • 41298 battles
  • 3,747
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

Hello tankers, i wanna ask you something about RNG.

 

I think RNG reduces using skill in matches. When use of skill decrases, the game turns into driving a tank to the right spot on map. This situation take this game far away from competetiveness. Because, when you are shooting, RNG decides almost everything. So you don't have to learn weakspots. Just shoot. If RNG says "ok" you hit, pen & dmg, if RNG says "no" you can't. Your knowledge is almost unimportant.

 

Also, when we have lower calibers, we don't really feel effects of RNG. But when calibers gets larger, RNG's affect getting bigger. For example, 200 alpha dmg could 150 to 250(100dmg difference), but 1.000 alpha could 750 to 1250(500dmg difference). This is affecting game really badly.

 

Finally, RNG has to be in the game but should be reduced. What do you think?

 

Agree or disagree, please vote poll.


Edited by MrBotosh, 17 October 2017 - 08:58 AM.


Far_Beyond_Driven #2 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:30 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15251 battles
  • 1,584
  • [RYNO] RYNO
  • Member since:
    09-21-2016
I agree with you.Rng has to be on Wot but it really too bad affects to us.Cuz its too much.Perhaps it can decrase to %15 or %20.Also if there is no rng,the game might be bored and ordinary.My opinion is like that now

Derethim #3 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14182 battles
  • 1,314
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
If the RNG was lowered for bigs guns and stayed the same for the small guns, it would be a lot better. But high-alpha guns should have their damage lowered by a tiny bit to compensate for better RNG as RNG is still better than having HUGE alpha, but 30% rng.

Strappster #4 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:35 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20462 battles
  • 6,579
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

Could you add a "it's fine" option to the second question, please? As it is you can't answer "yes" to the first part without then contradicting yourself in the second.

 

We know that RNG has a centre-weighted average, so the 25% variance isn't a straight line but it's a bell curve with a bias toward centre values. I don't have a problem with that.

 

My theory behind this is that I played a lot of dice-based RPGs and war games when I was younger, so the vagaries of RNG are something I accept in game. Players who grew up on games like CounterStrike, however, expect predictable results and get upset by the RNG element of WoT.

 

As for reducing the element of skill, removing RNG wouldn't help there. Players would be even more likely to drive to particular points on each map because the RNG that might have given them a chance when trying something different has been removed. Why take that risk any longer? You'll drive to the designated point for your tank and then hope that your pixel-peeping is stronger than the enemy's. Doesn't sound like fun to me.



jabster #5 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:35 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12114 battles
  • 19,103
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
So you can only complete the poll if you answer no to the first question. Not exactly a good start is it?

CaptainThunderWalker #6 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:40 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18297 battles
  • 1,124
  • [DSTL] DSTL
  • Member since:
    09-25-2015

Yes, I'll ignore the poll for now.

 

Also, you can't vote varied enough. I think the damage RNG is fine, but that the penetration RNG could use a reduction to 5% or something and dispersion values overall (ie; accuracy) should be improved on pretty much all vehicles especially when a vehicle is not moving.



Dava_117 #7 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 14139 battles
  • 848
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

In my opinion, RNG for accuracy is fine. 

But RNG on damage and pen is too high. In my opinion, damage RNG should be around 10%, but on pen at most 5%. 



Userext #8 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

Just add another option to second Q 25% or same or "this is fine" option with a link to

 

On the other hand, don't include accuracy to the RNG calculation

it's a worse case since the 9.6 update according to brumbarr's chart

Here

 

only 28% of the shots fired will ever make it close to your deadzone. Talk about skill, people. This needs to change instead of RNG on damage or penetration

 

and my opinion,

10% on pen

20% on damage



fryster_12 #9 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:50 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 40278 battles
  • 416
  • [U-L] U-L
  • Member since:
    11-19-2012
RNG used to be lower than what it is now and yeah I used to prefer it when it was lower.

Homer_J #10 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25605 battles
  • 24,888
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostMrBotosh, on 15 October 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

 

I think RNG reduces using skill in matches. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

RNG has saved my butt many a time.  I vote to keep it as it is, +67% or whatever.



Liviguy #11 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12112 battles
  • 332
  • Member since:
    01-12-2016
I’d make RNG variable with range, 10% at close range (100m), 17.5 at medium range (100-250m) and 25% at long range (>250m). Something along those lines.

Homer_J #12 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 25605 battles
  • 24,888
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postfryster_12, on 15 October 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

RNG used to be lower than what it is now and yeah I used to prefer it when it was lower.

 

When?

 

It was before I started playing that's for sure.



Userext #13 Posted 15 October 2017 - 09:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostHomer_J, on 15 October 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

 

When?

 

It was before I started playing that's for sure.

 

he's talking about the accuracy and that doesn't have a 25% RNG rating, It's a big pile of mess

 

Maybe some will listen some will not but...

 

Accuracy RNG is different from damage&penetration RNG



Aikl #14 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:01 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 22757 battles
  • 2,734
  • [REKRZ] REKRZ
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Not a fan, but it's hardly the main thing to improve in the game. RNG is kind of crap for players who rely on skill, but it's gold for players who has fun getting lucky sometimes. I can kind of get behind that. Lower RNG in competitive modes... maybe?

 

View PostUserext, on 15 October 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

View PostHomer_J, on 15 October 2017 - 09:53 PM, said:

 

When?

 

It was before I started playing that's for sure.

 

he's talking about the accuracy and that doesn't have a 25% RNG rating, It's a big pile of mess

(...)

 

Pretty sure accuracy was worse before 8.6 than it is now. At least not much different.


Edited by Aikl, 15 October 2017 - 10:04 PM.


Userext #15 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16259 battles
  • 897
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostAikl, on 15 October 2017 - 10:01 PM, said:

Pretty sure accuracy was worse before 8.6 than it is now. At least not much different.

 

I highly doubt that and in fact it is highly different.

 

In 8.6 they buffed the accuracy to prevent 20% of shots to fall outside of what is now called 7th circle. However, there used to be a higher percentage of shot in deadzone(and areas close to it). It definetly doesn't effect the brawler tanks much but the rest? oh boy

In 9.6 they nerfed the accuracy of deadzone and distributed shots that used to land in deadzone to circles around it. There used to be a much higher percentage of shots within 2nd circle and now it's only 28% of your shots. So basically, if you aren't at brawling range; 72% of your shots will miss if the target is within 2nd circle.

 

So the difference here is that sniper tanks, those who need to stay away from brawling range, miss more often while brawling tanks survive longer.

This effectively removes 2/3 of skill from game.



Thoreng #16 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 24134 battles
  • 808
  • [RYNO] RYNO
  • Member since:
    11-17-2013

I like the game how it is and I fear if it will change to worse. %25 RNG is good in anything imo. It makes the circumstances unkown in high level and creates more excitement. So, we are able to have the video serie, RNG.

 

Defend RNG.



K_A #17 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:52 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 12914 battles
  • 3,580
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View Postjabster, on 15 October 2017 - 08:35 PM, said:

So you can only complete the poll if you answer no to the first question. Not exactly a good start is it?

 

I just put in 50% for the lolz.. :hiding:

sgtYester #18 Posted 15 October 2017 - 10:56 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 49227 battles
  • 1,247
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
rng on pen needs to be removed.  

Jigabachi #19 Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17362 battles
  • 15,852
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostMrBotosh, on 15 October 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

Finally, RNG has to be in the game but should be reduced. What do you think?

I think that you should use the search function. We had this many times already and always came to the same conclusion: Yes, for a part of the calculations RNG should get changed.



theSwedishTankDriver #20 Posted 15 October 2017 - 11:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21390 battles
  • 897
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    03-04-2013

RNG on penetration should be removed completely. No more stupid bounces on enemies that really 'should' have penned.

 

RNG on damage is way too high. Around 10% would be better for the game. The current RNG is way too high to evaluate what risks you can take etc.

 

On accuracy I don't really know. Some change needs to be implemented though.

 

Lower RNG would reward skill and good plays, while the current system reward bad players, by enabling them to come out on top in an engagement that they should not have won. 







Also tagged with RNG, Penetration, Alpha damage, Accuracy

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users